> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue.
As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each time.
The reason artists don't like Spotify is not because they pay poorly, it's because they pay fairly. When you get a radio play, it's assumed that all the people the station reaches listened to the song. Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. Unpopular artists don't like this because they get accurate counts.
> Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly.
From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, which is not the same as how many people listened to it. If I only listen to an unpopular artist, but I don't listen as often as other people listen to popular artists (lower play count, even though it's still my favorite artist), nearly all of my subscription fee goes to the popular artists.
In the old days of purchasing music, it didn't matter how many times a person played the disc/track - it cost the same. You might argue that each play represents the marginal utility to the listener (and should thus be the basis for compensation), but I'm not sure that's entirely true.
> From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played,
Yes, I should have been more precise. Just like with a radio play, the second play in theory goes to the same mass of people, but is counted again. So I should have said "they know exactly how many people and how many times it was played, and pay accordingly". I believe they discount multiple plays from the same person, to prevent abuse.
> In the old days of purchasing music, it didn't matter how many times a person played the disc/track - it cost the same. You might argue that each play represents the marginal utility to the listener (and should thus be the basis for compensation), but I'm not sure that's entirely true.
You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two. So again, for a consumer, Spotify is more fair, because you only pay for what you consume, and artists liked the old model where you paid for 15 tracks even if you only wanted two.
> You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two.
My same argument applies to a single track purchased via iTunes - it doesn't matter how many times you play it; it costs the same. The bundling of tracks on an album is something all artists did/do, so it doesn't affect the fairness question in my opinion (at least, not fairness between artists).
Spotify doesn't only replace the radio for me, it replaces CDs. I think on-demand plays should be worth more - and pay more - than ad-filled, ad-hoc, unpredictable radio plays.
I was similarly never willing to pay for HBO before on-demand streaming, but am willing to pay now.
One important difference is that, at least historically, radio play could actually stimulate the purchase of music so that you could listen to it at a time of your choosing (and without ads). Whereas, streaming on-demand music is increasingly a substitute for owning the tracks for a lot of people.
Again, this is something that is more fair to the consumer at the expense of the artist. The only reason you owned an album was because you couldn't listen when you wanted to, and were forced to buy it. Now it's better for the consumer, but not the artist.
Then we shall return to the times before the 19th century, when people created art because they loved art, not to get rich. I suspect it will lead to higher quality art, even if the quantity is lower.
What nonsense. I don't think there are many musicians today who don't love art. The problem isn't just being unable to get rich, it's being unable to afford to be a musician at all, and that was certainly not the case before the 19th century (there were plenty of paid positions for musicians).
I think artist will have to focus more on cultivating a strong fanbase globally and leverage it for merchandise and live performances. There is lots of money to be made being an idol.
Personally, I'm not totally sold on streaming music being better for the consumer although I do have a subscription. I like to own any music I really care about.
That said, it's an easy statement for me to make given that I was buying music on vinyl, then CD, then digital downloads before there was much in the way of streaming. So, even leaving aside the vinyl, I had a large collection of owned music before modern streaming hit in a big way. I still buy things every now and then but I have a large core of older music I care about--which is the bulk of what I'm interested in.
If you look at the numbers of how many people listen to radio I think this is a fair number. Each song on the radio is pushed to thousands and more of listeners at once on a station. The daily listener reach of big stations is essily in the millions. Spotify is a drop in the ocean compared to radio
As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each time.
The reason artists don't like Spotify is not because they pay poorly, it's because they pay fairly. When you get a radio play, it's assumed that all the people the station reaches listened to the song. Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. Unpopular artists don't like this because they get accurate counts.